2012 (8) TMI 612 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening the assessment - assessment is sought to be opened beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year Held that - Assessing Officer did not hear the objections of the assessee nor did he pass a separate order on those objections - Assessing Officer has acted arbitrarily and in a manner clearly contrary to law in passing an order without disposing of the objections of the assessee - order of reassessment quashed and set aside

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of law by Assessing Officer in passing order of assessment without communication of reasons for reopening and without providing opportunity to file objections.

In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2004-05. The petitioner contended that the order was made without communication of reasons for reopening and without providing an opportunity to file objections, as mandated by the Supreme Court judgment in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). The Court noted that a notice was issued for reopening the assessment beyond the prescribed period, and the petitioner had requested disclosure of reasons and an opportunity to file objections. However, the assessment was completed without serving a notice under section 143(2) and without communicating the reasons for reopening. The Court held that there was a clear violation of the law by the Assessing Officer.

The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer was obligated to communicate the reasons for reopening the assessment, which was not done in this case. Despite the Revenue's claim that the petitioner was aware of the reasons from a previous assessment year, the Court found this explanation inadequate. It was reiterated that reasons must be specifically communicated to the assessee. Therefore, the Court decided to quash and set aside the impugned assessment order due to its blatant violation of legal principles. To avoid the limitation period, the Court issued a protective stay order to enable the Assessing Officer to proceed lawfully.

The Court issued specific directions in its order: (i) quashing the assessment order, (ii) mandating the communication of reasons for reopening within two weeks, (iii) allowing the petitioner to file objections within two weeks of receiving reasons, (iv) requiring the Assessing Officer to dispose of objections within four weeks, (v) deferring the assessment order if objections are rejected, (vi) staying the notice for four months, and (vii) keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.